Hate to self-publicize, but the follow-up programme “Any Answers?” has a brief comment of mine exposing a common misunderstanding about the odious document on gender segregation on UK campuses and criticizing Shami Chakrabarti for not taking UUK to task (24:10 into the broadcast). For a longer comment, read on.

What is wrong with “voluntary” gender segregation?

The recent debacle by Universities UK, who had to withdraw their odious document on gender segregation on British campuses, has highlighted a number of interesting issues on the relationship between universities and the public sphere. Before addressing the issue of “voluntary” gender segregation, a few comments on the governance of British Universities are in order.

British academics and especially University vice-chancellors have not covered themselves in glory during this incident. I have not seen a single public statement by any vice-chancellor denouncing the document, issued on their own behalf by UUK, as contrary to the ethos of British Universities. The opposition to gender segregation was not started by academics (Nick Cohen and Polly Toynbee having played a major role) and some lonely open letters to vice-chancellors asking them to take a stance received no replies and little support.

The way in which the UUK document was prepared gives an illuminating insight into the mind set of the new class of bureaucrats ruling British Universities, who manage to combine illiberal values with practical incompetence, free, as they are, from any form of effective monitoring and accountability.

Who could have predicted that a document mandating compulsory gender segregation on UK campuses would have generated widespread opposition? Not Nicola Dandridge who apparently did not submit the draft of her guidance document to UUK board members for prior approval. Who could have predicted that such inflammatory recommendation as compulsory gender segregation would require scrupulously careful legal advice? Not Nicola Dandridge who consulted a senior legal counsel (Fenella Morris QC, who must be busy clearing egg from her face) after the eruption of public outrage. Who, when consulting on a major policy document on freedom of speech, thought that it would not be appropriate to approach the leading human rights organization, namely Liberty (formerly the Council for Civil Liberties)? Not Nicola Dandridge, who, on the other hand, sought the opinions of the Church of England, of the Union of Jewish Students, of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, even of the obscure Lokahi Foundation. Not a mention either of the National Secular Society which, one might have thought, could have had something to contribute on freedom of, and from, religion.

Following such a humiliating defeat, that has resonated on a worldwide basis, the resignations of the CEO of UUK, Nicola Dandridge, should have been demanded as a matter of course.

In a sense Ms Dandridge should be thanked for her incompetence and lack of sensitivity because by recommending mandatory gender segregation she has managed to create a much wider front of opposition than would have been the case had she merely advocated “voluntary” gender apartheid.

So what is wrong with “voluntary” gender segregation? The debate on this matter in the last couple of weeks has, in my opinion, missed the main point at stake, in so far as it has centred on whether women who endorse gender segregation are truly free or whether they display “false consciousness”.

My contention is that gender equality in civil society is not optional, to be adhered to or not depending on one’s religious belief. Whereas the choice of following any one religion (with its own particular customs which may include gender segregation, special clothing requirements, dietary restrictions, etc.) is, obviously, a matter of personal choice and free from any state interference (in a secular state), dispensing with gender equality is not open to any individuals as citizens, i.e., as members of civil and political society. When attending an event organized on a non-religious basis, individuals cannot demand that their refusal to behave as citizens be respected by other citizens. I may want and indeed desire to be humiliated and treated as a sexual object in the confines of my private life, but this does not give me the right to be so treated in the public sphere. Gender equality is not a gift from god, indeed it is an ideal that had to be fought for against almost every religion. Gender equality is a constituent right of individuals as citizens, who may decide not to avail themselves of it in their private relationship but cannot be divested from in civil and political society.

Comments

While gender equality should not be optional, it is sadly not the case that gender equality is not optional. Given that white male patriarchy is the general modus operandi of life in the UK, it’s not always easy to find adequate ameliorating strategies to improve access for minorities. In the case of improving access for Muslim women (by allowing segregated classes), it might be that the occasional inconvenience for non-muslim women is set against the occasional improved access for muslim women; yet the case is still made that men would be largely over-empowered in the process while women, generally, would be yet again set back.

What then should be the focus for improving both gender equality and access? It seems to me that gender segregation is not always a bad idea – from obvious examples like toilet facilities and changing rooms there are greyer areas in which data has suggested both women and men can gain – such as improved academic performance in single sex schools. Yet, while I would maintain that co-education creates less sexist and more rounded individuals, there must be a point in which sticking out for the best results in social policy might get in the way of significant improvements.

The problem with saying ‘no’ to voluntary segregation is that the alternative to that would be compulsory mixing. I last went to college as a mature student in the late 1980s and there was no policy either way – students would enter lecture theatres in a haphazard, random way but, as they settled in their seats, it was clear that various blocks of social and gender allegiance would automatically form – not least many of the Women’s Group members sitting together. I also noticed this tendency when I taught at an agricultural College. So to a great extent, voluntary segregation by gender, class, age and income bracket is already an historical part of our culture that will, hopefully, lessen as equality progresses.

Asserting that gender equality is not optional does not make it so. Social improvements happen both slowly and unevenly. When I was a kid, only a few ‘token’ women were allowed into further and higher education and very few brown people of any gender were welcome. Improvements have come about due to radical action and constant compromise and keeping things voluntary is one way of helping these mostly bloodless changes to occur. Segregation should never be policy but denying the voluntary segregation that already exists is problematic and enforcing ‘no voluntary segregation’ would turn into a bizarre cattle-herding operation in every school and college throughout the land.

But everyone already agrees – and has said – that “voluntary segregation” of the kind you describe – people just sitting together – is not the problem or the issue. The issue is formal, arranged, stipulated segregation.

it might be that the occasional inconvenience for non-muslim women is set against the occasional improved access for muslim women

That’s really not likely, since most Muslim women don’t want gender segregation, and many of those women feel very insulted when people assume they do want it. (And of the few who do want it, few of them would actually be unable to attend events that don’t have it. Consider. They’re not segregated anywhere else except for actual religious institutions, so why would a mixed audience be any more of a bar to attendance than mixing would be anywhere else?)

They’re not segregated anywhere else except for actual religious institutions, so why would a mixed audience be any more of a bar to attendance than mixing would be anywhere else?)

Actually, if women go to an event with reactionary fundamentalist types speaking and debating on religious values, I can imagine all the religious anti-woman bullshit becoming more salient to the point that some men start acting out the supposedly dire “consequences” of mixing sexes. They might feel compelled much more so than usual to police women’s actions and presence through misogynistic backlash.

Of course, segregation is a terrible solution that only empowers the reactionaries. But, should no other protection be offered, segregation might look to a woman like a desirable degree of safety she would not usually worry about.

Voluntary in the context of a lecture open to the public on premises open to the public would mean, as EHCR seems to be on the point of saying, a situation with no gendering notices on doors, no people standing guard on doors, no organisers directing traffic to or within the hall, no disapproving looks, no pressure to conform to a set of cultural practices by labelling them “religious obligations” and no challenging where anyone sat – ever.

In those circumstances like-minded people and those who were friends would sit together in little clusters, as they always have and always will. It’s just that gender is neither binary nor the only way of being like-minded.

And can we please get away from this obsession with toilets? Toilets in public spaces – less than 200 years old anyway – have historically been separate for reasons of privacy and of safety. If you keep your eyes peeled, though, you will see that unisex toilets are becoming ever more common.

“So what is wrong with “voluntary” gender segregation? The debate on this matter in the last couple of weeks has, in my opinion, missed the main point at stake, in so far as it has centred on whether women who endorse gender segregation are truly free or whether they display “false consciousness”.

My contention is that gender equality in civil society is not optional, to be adhered to or not depending on one’s religious belief. ”

To me that sounds like a statement not in favour voluntary segregation. My intention is not to over-complicate the matter but to simplify it. People already voluntarily self-segregate all the time along all sorts of lines – so how does one make policy to prevent free association in case it might be self-segregated? To simplify the matter I say allow the present voluntary situation to continue. If the quote means the opposite of what I thought it to mean then I withdraw all my comments and all can assume I’m being dim.

#3 I agree Ophelia, that’s why it’s occasional – here in Tower Hamlets we are 36% Muslim and I have yet to attend an ‘officially’ segregated public event – though they might well exist in very small numbers.

#5 Maureen, I agree but I thought Manfredi was arguing against the voluntary nature of free association so I’m clearly not understanding the article. I’m not sure I’m at all obsessed with toilets it was just an example that came to mind – though I think, as an aside and off-topic, the ‘personal’ or ‘private’ toilet is a lot newer than the public ones – after all Shit Brook in Exeter was so named in the middle ages because that’s where every one had to either go or take a bucket while the Romans had actual flushing public toilets. But I’m still not sure what is being suggested by Manfredi – a policy of leave things as they are (I would agree with that)? In which case there’s nothing wrong with voluntary segregation other than the fact that people might volunteer to do it in inappropriate circumstances. My point is that one can not enforce something that is voluntary either way. Anyway, again, if I’ve misunderstood completely my apologies to all.